This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Yet again, I am shocked and amazed at the obesity of children.
At the pool tonight were seriously overweight kids accompanied by a fat parents. I'm not talking puppy fat, but wider than they were high. I feared for my safety when they hauled out and flopped back in. In the changing rooms, I overheard that their treat for making the effort was a trip to ' Macky d's'!
This really makes me angry. It is purely a form of child abuse and the children should be taken away to a boot camp until they are a normal weight.
John,
Surbiton
At the pool tonight were seriously overweight kids accompanied by a fat parents. I'm not talking puppy fat, but wider than they were high. I feared for my safety when they hauled out and flopped back in. In the changing rooms, I overheard that their treat for making the effort was a trip to ' Macky d's'!
This really makes me angry. It is purely a form of child abuse and the children should be taken away to a boot camp until they are a normal weight.
John,
Surbiton
In reply to Skol:
Perhaps a capitalist system which allows marketing of unhealthy products to children has to take some blame.
Perhaps a capitalist system which allows marketing of unhealthy products to children has to take some blame.
In reply to Skol:
Have you thought about writing a child training manual? I recommend clicker training. And wiring the parents up to the bathroom scales - more weight, more zapping.
To be fair, for half of them a trip to Macca D 's would represent a lower calorie density diet than the stuff they get at home. Every little counts.
Have you thought about writing a child training manual? I recommend clicker training. And wiring the parents up to the bathroom scales - more weight, more zapping.
To be fair, for half of them a trip to Macca D 's would represent a lower calorie density diet than the stuff they get at home. Every little counts.
In reply to maisie:
Seriously though. I reckon I could write a good manual.
We need to take a step back and look at how children are fed and brought up.
Fast food outlets like Maccy D's should be off limits to the fat. There should be scales at the entrance that automatically close the doors?
I would suggest that these type of outlets, and the access to such foods in shops should be limited.
Before anyone asks how to Police it, it's easy. ' I'm sorry you are too fat', should be the norm.
This should be the case with any excessive behaviour.
Seriously though. I reckon I could write a good manual.
We need to take a step back and look at how children are fed and brought up.
Fast food outlets like Maccy D's should be off limits to the fat. There should be scales at the entrance that automatically close the doors?
I would suggest that these type of outlets, and the access to such foods in shops should be limited.
Before anyone asks how to Police it, it's easy. ' I'm sorry you are too fat', should be the norm.
This should be the case with any excessive behaviour.
In reply to Skol:
Well it's already illegal for bar staff to serve alcohol to people if they've drunk too much already. Is food very different?
Well it's already illegal for bar staff to serve alcohol to people if they've drunk too much already. Is food very different?
In reply to Skol:
Last night you were pouring scorn on mums who feed their children vegetables and, er, water... I think, though your writing 'style' is hard to decipher... instead of just sweets and tonight you post this. You remind me of a tabloid newspaper scrambling for headlines.
Last night you were pouring scorn on mums who feed their children vegetables and, er, water... I think, though your writing 'style' is hard to decipher... instead of just sweets and tonight you post this. You remind me of a tabloid newspaper scrambling for headlines.
In reply to Skol:
Every day I hear parents say when their child has several decayed teeth 'he/she eats too many sweets'
I just want to shout at them 'STOP BUYING IT FOR THEM THEN YOU RETARD'
Yes its partly the systems fault for making crap food cheaper than proper food, but its also peoples fault for being weak and giving in to temptation so easily.
Every day I hear parents say when their child has several decayed teeth 'he/she eats too many sweets'
I just want to shout at them 'STOP BUYING IT FOR THEM THEN YOU RETARD'
Yes its partly the systems fault for making crap food cheaper than proper food, but its also peoples fault for being weak and giving in to temptation so easily.
In reply to Alyson:
Perhaps Skol is channelling Glenda Slagg?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenda_Slagg
> Last night you were pouring scorn on mums who feed their children vegetables and, er, water... I think, though your writing 'style' is hard to decipher... instead of just sweets and tonight you post this. You remind me of a tabloid newspaper scrambling for headlines.
Perhaps Skol is channelling Glenda Slagg?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenda_Slagg
In reply to Alyson:
I don't know. So many causes. Where to start?
Sugary food massively abundant and cheaply available, stack the checkouts high with brightly coloured snacks, we're a society that has been brought up to believe that we can have what we want, when we want it, no sense of delayed gratification, everyone deserves a nice little reward in the shape of chocolate, ice cream, food is sexy, a visit to macdonalds makes your day, pizza hut, pizza hut, kentucky friend chicken and a pizza hut. Obese characters wall to wall on TV becoming becoming the norm, soap operas where the Queen Vic / Rovers Return / Woolpack are the centres of the community and if you're not in there every night slinging ale down your neck theres something wrong with you and every add break has at least two adverts telling you that getting sh*tfaced is sexy and cool and will definately get you a shag, and then the medias massively irritating habit of telling people that their lifestyle isn't causing there obesity.
And breath....
I'm sorry...I've just stumbled across an episode of benefits street and sat through it with a feeling of despair. It was followed by an episode of 'baggy bodies' - a show about people who have gone from Super Morbid Obese to skinny in a quick period of time and now have the enough spare skin hanging off them to reupholster a three piece suite. I've had to leave the room and listen to some soothing music for a bit.
I blame society personally. And my mum. She never let me leave the table until my plate was clean, and we had massive plates in my house.
I don't know. So many causes. Where to start?
Sugary food massively abundant and cheaply available, stack the checkouts high with brightly coloured snacks, we're a society that has been brought up to believe that we can have what we want, when we want it, no sense of delayed gratification, everyone deserves a nice little reward in the shape of chocolate, ice cream, food is sexy, a visit to macdonalds makes your day, pizza hut, pizza hut, kentucky friend chicken and a pizza hut. Obese characters wall to wall on TV becoming becoming the norm, soap operas where the Queen Vic / Rovers Return / Woolpack are the centres of the community and if you're not in there every night slinging ale down your neck theres something wrong with you and every add break has at least two adverts telling you that getting sh*tfaced is sexy and cool and will definately get you a shag, and then the medias massively irritating habit of telling people that their lifestyle isn't causing there obesity.
And breath....
I'm sorry...I've just stumbled across an episode of benefits street and sat through it with a feeling of despair. It was followed by an episode of 'baggy bodies' - a show about people who have gone from Super Morbid Obese to skinny in a quick period of time and now have the enough spare skin hanging off them to reupholster a three piece suite. I've had to leave the room and listen to some soothing music for a bit.
I blame society personally. And my mum. She never let me leave the table until my plate was clean, and we had massive plates in my house.
In reply to Skol:
Would you keep underweight people out of health food shops too, or is it just overweight people you're targeting?
Would you keep underweight people out of health food shops too, or is it just overweight people you're targeting?
In reply to Skol: visiting time at hospital tonight, in bed opposite one very overweight granddaughter (age 9 or 10 ) , moaning she was hungry , she was just given money to go to the hospital shop to get 'something' to ease her hunger pangs.
No guidance was given, no supervision, and no surprises for me therefore when she came back with a handful of chocolates. ( the shop sold fresh fruit )
I nearly fell off my seat, when,the mother mentioned, that they had not yet even had their evening meal , (but had let her daughter eat sweets before their meal ! )
Blame:-
parents, secondary blame grandparent, who said nothing .
No guidance was given, no supervision, and no surprises for me therefore when she came back with a handful of chocolates. ( the shop sold fresh fruit )
I nearly fell off my seat, when,the mother mentioned, that they had not yet even had their evening meal , (but had let her daughter eat sweets before their meal ! )
Blame:-
parents, secondary blame grandparent, who said nothing .
In reply to Jim C:
Seen the advert on TV where all the kids are dressed as Hank Marvin? Kid gets home from school, mum says "Hmm, you must be Hank Marvin" and hands him a bag of deep fried salted mechanically recovered offal from the fridge to tide him over till mealtimes?
Seen the advert for Nutella which tells you that smearing a slice of bread with a load of chocolate is actually a healthy option because it contains the equivalent of a hazlenut?
You can't fight it. Parents are stupid, kids are stupid, advertisers want money. Food tastes nice. Admit defeat. We're powerless to stop it.
Nom Nom Nom Nom
Seen the advert on TV where all the kids are dressed as Hank Marvin? Kid gets home from school, mum says "Hmm, you must be Hank Marvin" and hands him a bag of deep fried salted mechanically recovered offal from the fridge to tide him over till mealtimes?
Seen the advert for Nutella which tells you that smearing a slice of bread with a load of chocolate is actually a healthy option because it contains the equivalent of a hazlenut?
You can't fight it. Parents are stupid, kids are stupid, advertisers want money. Food tastes nice. Admit defeat. We're powerless to stop it.
Nom Nom Nom Nom
In reply to Skol:
Surprised more people aren't talking about inactivity, but then it's easy to blame the food industry, the media, the government etc, for being overweight.
Eating highly calorific food is fine if you're going to burn it off. Our employment, our travelling and our recreation is more than ever focussed on sitting still. It's therefore no surprise that people are too fat. There are other factors, but exercise must surely be the most important one?
Surprised more people aren't talking about inactivity, but then it's easy to blame the food industry, the media, the government etc, for being overweight.
Eating highly calorific food is fine if you're going to burn it off. Our employment, our travelling and our recreation is more than ever focussed on sitting still. It's therefore no surprise that people are too fat. There are other factors, but exercise must surely be the most important one?
In reply to Jimbo C:
Don't let Shani hear you say that. I had a mob after me when I suggested it was a simple 'calories in, calories out' thing and Shani was handing out the pitchforks and burning torches.
> Eating highly calorific food is fine if you're going to burn it off. Our employment, our travelling and our recreation is more than ever focussed on sitting still. It's therefore no surprise that people are too fat. There are other factors, but exercise must surely be the most important one?
Don't let Shani hear you say that. I had a mob after me when I suggested it was a simple 'calories in, calories out' thing and Shani was handing out the pitchforks and burning torches.
Post edited at 22:47
Sweet Jesus, as Jethro predicted in another tedious troll post: the Daily Mail has been well and truly opened. Nauseating, or maybe that's just the calories.
In reply to ThunderCat:
Yeah, but you know what. If go through a period of relative inactivity (i.e. lots of late nights at work and vegging out at home) I gain a little weight. If I go through a period of high activity (i.e. doing a diy project at home) I lose a little weight. I know that's a very small sample size but there must be something in it
Yeah, but you know what. If go through a period of relative inactivity (i.e. lots of late nights at work and vegging out at home) I gain a little weight. If I go through a period of high activity (i.e. doing a diy project at home) I lose a little weight. I know that's a very small sample size but there must be something in it
In reply to Jimbo C:
You're preaching to the choir mate!
I'm off now, before Shani gets on my case again...
You're preaching to the choir mate!
I'm off now, before Shani gets on my case again...
In reply to ThunderCat:
I was aware of it, but did not pay attention, were any of the kids overweight ?
> Seen the advert on TV where all the kids are dressed as Hank Marvin? Kid gets home from school, mum says "Hmm, you must be Hank Marvin" and hands him a bag of deep fried salted mechanically recovered offal from the fridge to tide him over till mealtimes?
I was aware of it, but did not pay attention, were any of the kids overweight ?
In reply to Timmd:
Just because they're healthy on the outside, it doesn't mean they're healthy on the inside( Special K advert from the 80's).
Seriously underweight people may be doing themselves harm too? Perhaps they lack vitamins to fight infection , as well as putting others off normal food by constantly munching on nuts.
> Would you keep underweight people out of health food shops too, or is it just overweight people you're targeting?
Just because they're healthy on the outside, it doesn't mean they're healthy on the inside( Special K advert from the 80's).
Seriously underweight people may be doing themselves harm too? Perhaps they lack vitamins to fight infection , as well as putting others off normal food by constantly munching on nuts.
In reply to Skol:
The blame lies on the goverment for making fags too hard to buy. Fags are a great appitite suppressant and not enough kids are smoking these days. Think about it, spend dinner money on fags and you have to skip dinner. simples, more fags for kids.
The blame lies on the goverment for making fags too hard to buy. Fags are a great appitite suppressant and not enough kids are smoking these days. Think about it, spend dinner money on fags and you have to skip dinner. simples, more fags for kids.
In reply to Skol:
I am sure that I read somewhere that often, parent with fat children do not see them as fat. If there is no recognition that there is a problem, where do you start?
I am sure that I read somewhere that often, parent with fat children do not see them as fat. If there is no recognition that there is a problem, where do you start?
In reply to Jim C:
To be fair, if a relative is ill enough to be in hospital it is hardly the time to be concerned about sitting down for a full meal at the proper time.
At other times, sure. It sounds like at other times they also get it wrong in this case.
Neil
To be fair, if a relative is ill enough to be in hospital it is hardly the time to be concerned about sitting down for a full meal at the proper time.
At other times, sure. It sounds like at other times they also get it wrong in this case.
Neil
In reply to ThunderCat:
Behold I am here!
My issue was that CICO contains no causal information. It simply restates the problem. The analogy I gave was that this is like saying alcoholism can be cured my simply drinking less alcohol.
The problem is that there is a whole lot of biology inbetween the calories in and calories out. Isocaloric diets are not isometabolic.
Now re-read what I have put above and note the absence of pitchforks and torches!
> (In reply to Jimbo C)
> [...]
>
> Don't let Shani hear you say that. I had a mob after me when I suggested it was a simple 'calories in, calories out' thing and Shani was handing out the pitchforks and burning torches.
>
>
> [...]
>
> Don't let Shani hear you say that. I had a mob after me when I suggested it was a simple 'calories in, calories out' thing and Shani was handing out the pitchforks and burning torches.
>
>
Behold I am here!
My issue was that CICO contains no causal information. It simply restates the problem. The analogy I gave was that this is like saying alcoholism can be cured my simply drinking less alcohol.
The problem is that there is a whole lot of biology inbetween the calories in and calories out. Isocaloric diets are not isometabolic.
Now re-read what I have put above and note the absence of pitchforks and torches!
In reply to Shani:
This is all very true - but it remains a fact that if over a sustained period you eat fewer calories than you *actually* burn *at that point*, you will lose weight.
Your point is more closely related to how easy it is, how quickly weight is lost, how well you feel, whether it is sustainable/whether it all goes straight back on, how many calories you actually burn at any given point etc.
Neil
This is all very true - but it remains a fact that if over a sustained period you eat fewer calories than you *actually* burn *at that point*, you will lose weight.
Your point is more closely related to how easy it is, how quickly weight is lost, how well you feel, whether it is sustainable/whether it all goes straight back on, how many calories you actually burn at any given point etc.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
Yes, but not in a linear fashion. Your metabolism will adjust downwards to start with. The really interesting bit is that often ones weight will bounce back in a non-linear fashion to your initial weight - plus a bit, (very quickly), and then will level off....as if some kind of set-point is being defended. The question is why? What sets this set-point?
Not really. My point is that 'CICO' contains NO causal information. That point remains.
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> This is all very true - but it remains a fact that if over a sustained period you eat fewer calories than you *actually* burn *at that point*, you will lose weight.
>
> This is all very true - but it remains a fact that if over a sustained period you eat fewer calories than you *actually* burn *at that point*, you will lose weight.
Yes, but not in a linear fashion. Your metabolism will adjust downwards to start with. The really interesting bit is that often ones weight will bounce back in a non-linear fashion to your initial weight - plus a bit, (very quickly), and then will level off....as if some kind of set-point is being defended. The question is why? What sets this set-point?
> Your point is more closely related to how easy it is, how quickly weight is lost, how well you feel, whether it is sustainable/whether it all goes straight back on, how many calories you actually burn at any given point etc.
>
>
Not really. My point is that 'CICO' contains NO causal information. That point remains.
In reply to Shani:
"The question is why? What sets this set-point?"
Would be interested to know that myself. I find that my weight seems to stabilise around 18 stone[1] if I eat without thinking about it and do no exercise other than climbing (rubbish for losing weight), walking (as a mode of transport) and the odd bit of cycling (but I can keep it lower if I eat healthily and do some running).
[1] Not quite as bad as it sounds as I'm 6' 4" and heavily built. I expect around 15 stone is ideal.
Neil
"The question is why? What sets this set-point?"
Would be interested to know that myself. I find that my weight seems to stabilise around 18 stone[1] if I eat without thinking about it and do no exercise other than climbing (rubbish for losing weight), walking (as a mode of transport) and the odd bit of cycling (but I can keep it lower if I eat healthily and do some running).
[1] Not quite as bad as it sounds as I'm 6' 4" and heavily built. I expect around 15 stone is ideal.
Neil
Post edited at 09:43
In reply to Shani:
By causal information do you mean what motivation (or lack of) causes people to eat rubbish and sit on their backsides all the time?
Neil
By causal information do you mean what motivation (or lack of) causes people to eat rubbish and sit on their backsides all the time?
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
We are similar in build - I am 6'3" and weight about 85kg - but have visible abs which suggests BF around 10%. My BF level undulates but I never have to count calories and I eat as much as I want. I am also aware that my BF and weight have evolved to be managed over longer periods than days or weeks.
If you think about it your body has had to evolve strategies to manage unpredictable energy expenditure and inputs. Fat storage and expenditure would clearly have had to work over extended periods of time for survival purposes and explain the non-linear relationship between weight/fat and calories.
Yes we can all lose weight by eating less and doing more, but your 'weight' is managed over longer terms than some 12 week weight loss program. Hence for many people, once they've lost a lot of weight their 'adipostat' (the mechanism or mechanisms that control weight), ramp put and drive people back to eating food as, although the dieter may now be at what we regard as a healthy weight, the adipostat simply sees it as 12 weeks of food-scarcity and so does everything it can to get more calories in and reduce expenditure out.
Once the dieter's biology has driven this refeed and fat stores have returned to what the adipostat regards as 'normal', then the dieters weight gain platueaus again at the previous obese level (plus a bit).
We are similar in build - I am 6'3" and weight about 85kg - but have visible abs which suggests BF around 10%. My BF level undulates but I never have to count calories and I eat as much as I want. I am also aware that my BF and weight have evolved to be managed over longer periods than days or weeks.
If you think about it your body has had to evolve strategies to manage unpredictable energy expenditure and inputs. Fat storage and expenditure would clearly have had to work over extended periods of time for survival purposes and explain the non-linear relationship between weight/fat and calories.
Yes we can all lose weight by eating less and doing more, but your 'weight' is managed over longer terms than some 12 week weight loss program. Hence for many people, once they've lost a lot of weight their 'adipostat' (the mechanism or mechanisms that control weight), ramp put and drive people back to eating food as, although the dieter may now be at what we regard as a healthy weight, the adipostat simply sees it as 12 weeks of food-scarcity and so does everything it can to get more calories in and reduce expenditure out.
Once the dieter's biology has driven this refeed and fat stores have returned to what the adipostat regards as 'normal', then the dieters weight gain platueaus again at the previous obese level (plus a bit).
In reply to Shani:
Seems to describe reasonably what happens to me. It is strange.
I have heard it said that there are essentially two types of person who evolved successfully. One is the hunter, who is skinny and fast and can always ensure food is available. The other is the person who carries weight, is slower, perhaps couldn't get food as often but because of that weight can go without it for longer, but when they do get food they are motivated to eat more to store it for that time.
I have a feeling I'm the latter. I do like being physically active which keeps it off to a point, but if I go away for a week with work, or over Christmas, or whatever, I soon pile it on.
What I do find though is that I have very good stamina even though I'm not fast - energy storage and the availability to use it might well be a factor. (For example, when I decided to take up running I pretty much just went out and did 10k from cold and it didn't kill me off - I wasn't fast, but I think a lot of people couldn't do that).
Neil
Seems to describe reasonably what happens to me. It is strange.
I have heard it said that there are essentially two types of person who evolved successfully. One is the hunter, who is skinny and fast and can always ensure food is available. The other is the person who carries weight, is slower, perhaps couldn't get food as often but because of that weight can go without it for longer, but when they do get food they are motivated to eat more to store it for that time.
I have a feeling I'm the latter. I do like being physically active which keeps it off to a point, but if I go away for a week with work, or over Christmas, or whatever, I soon pile it on.
What I do find though is that I have very good stamina even though I'm not fast - energy storage and the availability to use it might well be a factor. (For example, when I decided to take up running I pretty much just went out and did 10k from cold and it didn't kill me off - I wasn't fast, but I think a lot of people couldn't do that).
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
Yeah - it is strange, but when you look at it, this scenario is one we all see. We all know a lazy and skinny guy who eats shit loads of crap just as we know fat people how are active (but yeah, they do usually eat a lot as well).
Just as an alcoholic can be dry for a few weeks, but ultimately gives in to drink again, the same can happen with the obese when dieting. You might look a healthy weight but what matters is how this new weight is interepreted by your inner bodyfat regulating mechanisms and how these view the 'new leaner you' and anticipated expenditure/inputs over longer time-scales. This is the point that many CICO enthusiasts fail to see - there is complex biology governing fat stores and you CANNOT escape your biology.
There are a variety of things you can do to sort this situation out though.
Yeah - it is strange, but when you look at it, this scenario is one we all see. We all know a lazy and skinny guy who eats shit loads of crap just as we know fat people how are active (but yeah, they do usually eat a lot as well).
Just as an alcoholic can be dry for a few weeks, but ultimately gives in to drink again, the same can happen with the obese when dieting. You might look a healthy weight but what matters is how this new weight is interepreted by your inner bodyfat regulating mechanisms and how these view the 'new leaner you' and anticipated expenditure/inputs over longer time-scales. This is the point that many CICO enthusiasts fail to see - there is complex biology governing fat stores and you CANNOT escape your biology.
There are a variety of things you can do to sort this situation out though.
In reply to Shani:
You thinking things like low-carb diets?
(A colleague is dropping weight like there's no tomorrow by following the "paleo" diet - though I'm not 100% convinced he wouldn't have done the same by following a similarly healthy but wider diet)
Neil
You thinking things like low-carb diets?
(A colleague is dropping weight like there's no tomorrow by following the "paleo" diet - though I'm not 100% convinced he wouldn't have done the same by following a similarly healthy but wider diet)
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
The Cavement Diet? From what I've read it was invented by a chap with no real knowledge of anthropology and has, since, been criticised by anthropologists. Sounds like all the other fad diets.
I'll stick to my porridge. 50g of porridge for two meals a day, and then eat 'normally' for the remaining meal at tea-time. My energy levels are up and stay up, my clothes feel looser, I don't feel as bloated and I generally feel good in myself (apparently I look healthier too). I'm also not going hungry... which is nice. Liking porridge is a must though.
The Cavement Diet? From what I've read it was invented by a chap with no real knowledge of anthropology and has, since, been criticised by anthropologists. Sounds like all the other fad diets.
I'll stick to my porridge. 50g of porridge for two meals a day, and then eat 'normally' for the remaining meal at tea-time. My energy levels are up and stay up, my clothes feel looser, I don't feel as bloated and I generally feel good in myself (apparently I look healthier too). I'm also not going hungry... which is nice. Liking porridge is a must though.
In reply to Shani:
You know I'n not being entirely serious here, don't you..? L)
> Behold I am here!
> Now re-read what I have put above and note the absence of pitchforks and torches!
You know I'n not being entirely serious here, don't you..? L)
In reply to Jim C:
What..the actors in the advertisement? Of course not...?
Probably for the same reason they don't get real life drunk people to appear in alcohol adverts
> I was aware of it, but did not pay attention, were any of the kids overweight ?
What..the actors in the advertisement? Of course not...?
Probably for the same reason they don't get real life drunk people to appear in alcohol adverts
In reply to Neil Williams:
There are a couple of reasons why the paleo/caveman diet would lead to weight loss. It isn't about paleo re-enactment, it is largely about eating real food. There is no one paleo diet (Kitavans eath 80% starch in their diet whilst Inuit eat largely protein and fat).
People have success on a paleo diet as food quality increases. This has implications for our palate, inflammation, gut flora and general nutritional health.
I wouldn't recommend low-carb if you are active (I did do at one time, but I often conflated low carb with 'lower carb'). I have a lot of carbs on a training day in particular and dial them back on a rest day.
Interestingly, those that bash the paleo diet often end up recommending a diet that would be considered 'paleo' ie real foods that you prepare yourself from fresh ingredients. 'Paleo' is just a shorthand way of describing this.
Chris
There are a couple of reasons why the paleo/caveman diet would lead to weight loss. It isn't about paleo re-enactment, it is largely about eating real food. There is no one paleo diet (Kitavans eath 80% starch in their diet whilst Inuit eat largely protein and fat).
People have success on a paleo diet as food quality increases. This has implications for our palate, inflammation, gut flora and general nutritional health.
I wouldn't recommend low-carb if you are active (I did do at one time, but I often conflated low carb with 'lower carb'). I have a lot of carbs on a training day in particular and dial them back on a rest day.
Interestingly, those that bash the paleo diet often end up recommending a diet that would be considered 'paleo' ie real foods that you prepare yourself from fresh ingredients. 'Paleo' is just a shorthand way of describing this.
Chris
In reply to Taking the Mick?:
Personally I think eating porridge is like eating a bowl of congealed sick, so you can keep that one
If you were bloated perhaps you are gluten[1] intolerant or something? Eating "normal" food shouldn't make a "normal" person bloated - that's a sign of something else not right.
[1] Some gluten intolerant/celiac people can tolerate oats, some can't - they contain a protein called avenin which is very similar to gluten but not identical. If this is you you must be one who can.
Neil
Personally I think eating porridge is like eating a bowl of congealed sick, so you can keep that one
If you were bloated perhaps you are gluten[1] intolerant or something? Eating "normal" food shouldn't make a "normal" person bloated - that's a sign of something else not right.
[1] Some gluten intolerant/celiac people can tolerate oats, some can't - they contain a protein called avenin which is very similar to gluten but not identical. If this is you you must be one who can.
Neil
Post edited at 10:51
In reply to Neil Williams:
Neil, take a look at this paper ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491655/ ).
This illustrates some of the complexities I allude to. These mice were on isocaloric diets (same number of calories), but some were on 'industrial diets' and some of standard mice chow. Furthermore some mice were allowed to eat when they wanted and others had to eat in a feeding window.
The outcomes in obesity (and activity) were different for all four groups and statistically significant. So yes, it was calories in vs calories out, but that phrase does little to explain the differing obesity outcomes.
Neil, take a look at this paper ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491655/ ).
This illustrates some of the complexities I allude to. These mice were on isocaloric diets (same number of calories), but some were on 'industrial diets' and some of standard mice chow. Furthermore some mice were allowed to eat when they wanted and others had to eat in a feeding window.
The outcomes in obesity (and activity) were different for all four groups and statistically significant. So yes, it was calories in vs calories out, but that phrase does little to explain the differing obesity outcomes.
Post edited at 11:10
In reply to Skol:
There's no problem with Macky D's... its just occassional treats are different from constant sugary drinks, fries etc.
When I was growing up consoles were just coming out and my parents wouldnt get us one until we were 15/16 or so.. we were basically thrown out the door with a football.. we just played sports constantly, trained every day at some sport. I just set you up for a life in sport.
There's no problem with Macky D's... its just occassional treats are different from constant sugary drinks, fries etc.
When I was growing up consoles were just coming out and my parents wouldnt get us one until we were 15/16 or so.. we were basically thrown out the door with a football.. we just played sports constantly, trained every day at some sport. I just set you up for a life in sport.
In reply to Shani:
Real foods you prepare yourself is a good description Chris. Since going paleo last year its been an interesting journey. Weight off and staying off, no hiatus hernia, no joint pain, no headaches etc etc. My wife and daughter are now Paleo too and we take the quality of our food seriously. Now broadening out and looking at functional fitness etc. Dont try taking a 2 year old to the Health Visitor though, not feeding her grains is seen as A Bad Thing!
Real foods you prepare yourself is a good description Chris. Since going paleo last year its been an interesting journey. Weight off and staying off, no hiatus hernia, no joint pain, no headaches etc etc. My wife and daughter are now Paleo too and we take the quality of our food seriously. Now broadening out and looking at functional fitness etc. Dont try taking a 2 year old to the Health Visitor though, not feeding her grains is seen as A Bad Thing!
In reply to ring ouzel:
You do have to be careful if you're cutting out bread and cereals because they are fortified. However if you are careful you should be able to get those vitamins/minerals via any other diet.
Neil
You do have to be careful if you're cutting out bread and cereals because they are fortified. However if you are careful you should be able to get those vitamins/minerals via any other diet.
Neil
In reply to Skol:
"We" are all better than "them", right? You need "them" to make you feel good about yourself. Be thankful.
Personally I think all Internet forums should have an entry test whereby every time you try to post, you must first prove that you can string together a coherent sentence in your native language.
"We" are all better than "them", right? You need "them" to make you feel good about yourself. Be thankful.
Personally I think all Internet forums should have an entry test whereby every time you try to post, you must first prove that you can string together a coherent sentence in your native language.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Fortification is an interesting subject. If manufacturers have to fortify (ie add-in) vitamins and minerals to make something nutritious then what does that say about that foodstuff to start with?
Real food shouldn't need to be fortified. You shouldn't need to add vitamins and minerals to food (nor supplement with vitmains). Food - real food - already contains vitamins and minerals. You should get your vitamins and minerals from food. If you add vitamins and minerals to a bag of Haribo you've not really made it healthier!
If you need to supplement in anything other than exceptional cases, you should probably look at the quality of your diet for nutritional completeness.
This brings me to another bug bear! The bioavailability of vitamins and minerals is not the same when they've been synthesised in to pill or additive form. This approach of adding vitamins and minerals also hinges on an assumption that we already know all the important nutrients and their functions and it totally ignores competitive or synergistic effects between the thousands of chemical compounds found in one serving of real food!
With cereal in particular, they contain lots of antinutrients and modern processing doesn't necessarily make them hazard free. Cereals and grains fermented/prepared in traditional ways are probably safer to consume.
> (In reply to ring ouzel)
>
> You do have to be careful if you're cutting out bread and cereals because they are fortified. However if you are careful you should be able to get those vitamins/minerals via any other diet.
>
> Neil
>
> You do have to be careful if you're cutting out bread and cereals because they are fortified. However if you are careful you should be able to get those vitamins/minerals via any other diet.
>
> Neil
Fortification is an interesting subject. If manufacturers have to fortify (ie add-in) vitamins and minerals to make something nutritious then what does that say about that foodstuff to start with?
Real food shouldn't need to be fortified. You shouldn't need to add vitamins and minerals to food (nor supplement with vitmains). Food - real food - already contains vitamins and minerals. You should get your vitamins and minerals from food. If you add vitamins and minerals to a bag of Haribo you've not really made it healthier!
If you need to supplement in anything other than exceptional cases, you should probably look at the quality of your diet for nutritional completeness.
This brings me to another bug bear! The bioavailability of vitamins and minerals is not the same when they've been synthesised in to pill or additive form. This approach of adding vitamins and minerals also hinges on an assumption that we already know all the important nutrients and their functions and it totally ignores competitive or synergistic effects between the thousands of chemical compounds found in one serving of real food!
With cereal in particular, they contain lots of antinutrients and modern processing doesn't necessarily make them hazard free. Cereals and grains fermented/prepared in traditional ways are probably safer to consume.
Post edited at 11:53
In reply to Shani:
After trying several diets over the years I started on the 5:2 diet last April. In less than four months I'd dropped from nearly 100Kg to 82Kg (I'm 5' 11"), in effect almost going back to the weight I was in my early twenties over thirty years ago. I'm actually lighter than I was eight years ago when I did the Bob Graham. Last year I was also doing a lot of cycling taking advantage of the good weather and a fortuitous volontary redundancy. My wife also took up the 5:2 diet and has lost an equivalent proportion of her original weight (being diplomatic here!) and Andy of this parish lost a similar amount of weight via a different diet. I found that for me, only having to concentrate on my food intake for a day at a time was much easier than constant monitoring every day, I also found that I didn't over compensate on the other days.
While the 5:2 diet doesn't mandate how you provide the 600Kcals on the fasting days, in practice you need to come up with "decent" meals so that you feel both sated and don't get sudden hunger pangs. This would tie in with your comments about food quality. I'm aware that the definition of "decent" is woolly at best but in this case I'm referring to food where, if possible, any processing other than drying of herbs and condiments is done by me rather than a manufacturer.
I stopped the diet about four months ago and have maintained my weight since then. This included a six week period of almost complete inactivity following a hip replacement op, though from observing other processes (no fingernail growth) I suspect that my body was diverting as much energy as it could to repairing things as I wasn't particularly concerned with dieting. I put weight on at new year (about 2.5Kg), this coincided with my body getting back to normal as it were. A couple of weeks of dieting is bringing my weight back down again but I'm aware that I'm still in recovery from the op so can't overdo things.
I've read somewhere that it takes about six months to "re-educate" the digestive system to a new diet, particularly if you are cutting out addictive foods though I suspect that like a smoker or alcoholic the cravings never really disappear.
After trying several diets over the years I started on the 5:2 diet last April. In less than four months I'd dropped from nearly 100Kg to 82Kg (I'm 5' 11"), in effect almost going back to the weight I was in my early twenties over thirty years ago. I'm actually lighter than I was eight years ago when I did the Bob Graham. Last year I was also doing a lot of cycling taking advantage of the good weather and a fortuitous volontary redundancy. My wife also took up the 5:2 diet and has lost an equivalent proportion of her original weight (being diplomatic here!) and Andy of this parish lost a similar amount of weight via a different diet. I found that for me, only having to concentrate on my food intake for a day at a time was much easier than constant monitoring every day, I also found that I didn't over compensate on the other days.
While the 5:2 diet doesn't mandate how you provide the 600Kcals on the fasting days, in practice you need to come up with "decent" meals so that you feel both sated and don't get sudden hunger pangs. This would tie in with your comments about food quality. I'm aware that the definition of "decent" is woolly at best but in this case I'm referring to food where, if possible, any processing other than drying of herbs and condiments is done by me rather than a manufacturer.
I stopped the diet about four months ago and have maintained my weight since then. This included a six week period of almost complete inactivity following a hip replacement op, though from observing other processes (no fingernail growth) I suspect that my body was diverting as much energy as it could to repairing things as I wasn't particularly concerned with dieting. I put weight on at new year (about 2.5Kg), this coincided with my body getting back to normal as it were. A couple of weeks of dieting is bringing my weight back down again but I'm aware that I'm still in recovery from the op so can't overdo things.
I've read somewhere that it takes about six months to "re-educate" the digestive system to a new diet, particularly if you are cutting out addictive foods though I suspect that like a smoker or alcoholic the cravings never really disappear.
In reply to Neil Williams:
I agree with Shani, I am very suspicious of foods which have to be fortified. I also dont believe that we can derive all our nutrients and vitamins from a standard well balanced diet, mainly because it doesn't take into account the quality of the food we eat and industrially produced meat, fruit and vegetables are bathed in various chemical concoctions but also because I disagree with the standard notion of what constitutes a well balanced diet.
One other thing is that I dont consider the Paleo diet to be a diet. I see a diet as something that people try and then go back to their old ways of eating. For me I intend to always eat this way, it is, for want of a better term, more of a lifestyle than a diet.
I agree with Shani, I am very suspicious of foods which have to be fortified. I also dont believe that we can derive all our nutrients and vitamins from a standard well balanced diet, mainly because it doesn't take into account the quality of the food we eat and industrially produced meat, fruit and vegetables are bathed in various chemical concoctions but also because I disagree with the standard notion of what constitutes a well balanced diet.
One other thing is that I dont consider the Paleo diet to be a diet. I see a diet as something that people try and then go back to their old ways of eating. For me I intend to always eat this way, it is, for want of a better term, more of a lifestyle than a diet.
Post edited at 12:18
In reply to Skol:
It is the parents fault and later in life it is the kids fault too.
Food companies shouldn't be blamed just because Mother cannot stand up to little Timmy's incessant requests for sugary food and pizza.
Take some god damn responsibility for yourself and your offspring.
It is the parents fault and later in life it is the kids fault too.
Food companies shouldn't be blamed just because Mother cannot stand up to little Timmy's incessant requests for sugary food and pizza.
Take some god damn responsibility for yourself and your offspring.
In reply to myth:
You might be heartened by Hattie's comments about food here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/10211090/Successful-parenting-without-spen...
You might be heartened by Hattie's comments about food here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/10211090/Successful-parenting-without-spen...
In reply to Skol:
As a species I think its fairly obvious we are addicted to sugar. We've begun to nail our own coffin over the last few hundred years as, in the developed world we've figured out how to produce food to keep our population satisfied, sadly as sugar addicts we generally eat more than we need and have over satisfies our need for food.
So culturally it is acceptable to eat and over eat. As parents we are in this culture, we are to blame, we shape the culture and thus the culture shapes us.
I speculate that most climbers/walkers/cyclists in this forum are mostly of the healthy side of this and we, as a group are becoming a minority compared to the norm.
c'mon keep up at the back of the classroom.
As a species I think its fairly obvious we are addicted to sugar. We've begun to nail our own coffin over the last few hundred years as, in the developed world we've figured out how to produce food to keep our population satisfied, sadly as sugar addicts we generally eat more than we need and have over satisfies our need for food.
So culturally it is acceptable to eat and over eat. As parents we are in this culture, we are to blame, we shape the culture and thus the culture shapes us.
I speculate that most climbers/walkers/cyclists in this forum are mostly of the healthy side of this and we, as a group are becoming a minority compared to the norm.
c'mon keep up at the back of the classroom.
In reply to ti_pin_man:
One of the things that fats do in the diet is provide a sense of "fullness", it's quite easy to feel sated on a small portion of a traditionally cooked dish. Low fat meals and the like have to replace the taste and bulk of fat with something and they do it with sugars (amongst other things to make everything stick together so that the meal resembles what it should), thus to get the same sense of satiation you have to eat more.
As a species we've been around for a couple of million years, for the majority of which time there has been feast and famine and our physiology has adapted to trigger responses when we think there's going to be a famine one of which is retaining energy by "laying down fat". This is why continuous starvation diets don't work as you are fighting against a deeply ingrained physiological response.
One of the things that fats do in the diet is provide a sense of "fullness", it's quite easy to feel sated on a small portion of a traditionally cooked dish. Low fat meals and the like have to replace the taste and bulk of fat with something and they do it with sugars (amongst other things to make everything stick together so that the meal resembles what it should), thus to get the same sense of satiation you have to eat more.
As a species we've been around for a couple of million years, for the majority of which time there has been feast and famine and our physiology has adapted to trigger responses when we think there's going to be a famine one of which is retaining energy by "laying down fat". This is why continuous starvation diets don't work as you are fighting against a deeply ingrained physiological response.
In reply to Bob:
I agree with this - "low fat" is generally garbage. You generally can't do a low fat version of anything unhealthy without filling it with sugar (and even then it tastes worse than the original). Best, if you're watching calories, to read the nutritional information instead.
Neil
I agree with this - "low fat" is generally garbage. You generally can't do a low fat version of anything unhealthy without filling it with sugar (and even then it tastes worse than the original). Best, if you're watching calories, to read the nutritional information instead.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
True, but sadly, even that doesn't give the full picture. And of course when you take cost into the equation you are screwed. I have noticed that veg in the supermarkets is now more or less uniformly a £1 for everything!
> Best, if you're watching calories, to read the nutritional information instead.
True, but sadly, even that doesn't give the full picture. And of course when you take cost into the equation you are screwed. I have noticed that veg in the supermarkets is now more or less uniformly a £1 for everything!
In reply to ByEek:
While I'm by no stretch of the imagination a veggie, if short of money you'd do better to cut out the meat. It's far more expensive than any vegetables.
Neil
While I'm by no stretch of the imagination a veggie, if short of money you'd do better to cut out the meat. It's far more expensive than any vegetables.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
Liver is incredibly nutritious and quite cheap. But you need to go to a family butchers to get it as the vacuum packed supermarket liver is often distastefully strong.
I rarely drink and don't smoke - nor indeed have any expensive habits or tastes. My disposable income goes on quality food instead. I choose to buy locally/ethically raised and slaughtered meat. It is 2-3 times more expensive than supermarket meat but I'm a 'foodie' and see beyond calories.
It also allows me to sleep better knowing my food lived a good life on ecologically diverse pasture.
I also get free Ox bones from the butchers for free and so can whip up a cracking stock for soups!
> (In reply to ByEek)
>
> While I'm by no stretch of the imagination a veggie, if short of money you'd do better to cut out the meat. It's far more expensive than any vegetables.
>
> Neil
>
> While I'm by no stretch of the imagination a veggie, if short of money you'd do better to cut out the meat. It's far more expensive than any vegetables.
>
> Neil
Liver is incredibly nutritious and quite cheap. But you need to go to a family butchers to get it as the vacuum packed supermarket liver is often distastefully strong.
I rarely drink and don't smoke - nor indeed have any expensive habits or tastes. My disposable income goes on quality food instead. I choose to buy locally/ethically raised and slaughtered meat. It is 2-3 times more expensive than supermarket meat but I'm a 'foodie' and see beyond calories.
It also allows me to sleep better knowing my food lived a good life on ecologically diverse pasture.
I also get free Ox bones from the butchers for free and so can whip up a cracking stock for soups!
Post edited at 14:22
In reply to Neil Williams:
Yes and no. If you ditch trying to cook fresh and go down the Iceland / Farm Foods mass manufactured crap that costs pennies, sadly, calorie for calorie you can't really do much better.
There was an interesting program before Christmas where James Martin and couple of other chefs went to three low income homes, took the money they had to spend on food and attempted to feed each household with fresh, home made food. None of them did it despite having the luxury of time to shop around and their extensive knowledge of food and recipe ideas.
Which brings us back to the original question...
Yes and no. If you ditch trying to cook fresh and go down the Iceland / Farm Foods mass manufactured crap that costs pennies, sadly, calorie for calorie you can't really do much better.
There was an interesting program before Christmas where James Martin and couple of other chefs went to three low income homes, took the money they had to spend on food and attempted to feed each household with fresh, home made food. None of them did it despite having the luxury of time to shop around and their extensive knowledge of food and recipe ideas.
Which brings us back to the original question...
In reply to ByEek:
Having gone down this route, it might be worth noting that an *awful lot* more food used to be tinned than now. I noticed this a while ago when I did the shopping for a Scout camp and found that I had not bought a single tin. When I was a kid, most of the food on camp was tinned.
So given this, non-fresh food can't in and of itself be blamed for obesity.
Neil
Having gone down this route, it might be worth noting that an *awful lot* more food used to be tinned than now. I noticed this a while ago when I did the shopping for a Scout camp and found that I had not bought a single tin. When I was a kid, most of the food on camp was tinned.
So given this, non-fresh food can't in and of itself be blamed for obesity.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
I whole heatedly agree, but if you are on a low income, time poor and don't have much in the way of cooking skills or indeed the finance to cook your food properly, the sort of food options available to you are more likely to be high fat and high sugar type processed food.
> So given this, non-fresh food can't in and of itself be blamed for obesity.
I whole heatedly agree, but if you are on a low income, time poor and don't have much in the way of cooking skills or indeed the finance to cook your food properly, the sort of food options available to you are more likely to be high fat and high sugar type processed food.
In reply to ByEek:
I used to think I was 'time poor' and then I tried to live without TV. I don't watch TV that much, but living without it made sitting down 'because I was too tired to do anything after a long day at work' a very boring option. And so I ended up doing a lot more in the evening....
> (In reply to Neil Williams)
>
> [...]
>
> time poor
>
> [...]
>
> time poor
I used to think I was 'time poor' and then I tried to live without TV. I don't watch TV that much, but living without it made sitting down 'because I was too tired to do anything after a long day at work' a very boring option. And so I ended up doing a lot more in the evening....
Post edited at 15:22
In reply to Bob:
I read something recently that basically said toddlers that had full fat milk as opposed to semi-skimmed were less likely to be overweight (if I find the abstract again I'll post it). Obviously it is only one factor that is contributing to a problem, but I think the point was partly about that feeling of fullness from full fat milk (which is only about 4% fat so hardly a high-fat food!).
The stats on pre-school children being overweight or obese are pretty scary, plus only 10% get enough physical activity (recommendations are different for this age group - 180 mins per day of light, moderate or vigorous activity).
> (In reply to ti_pin_man)
>
> One of the things that fats do in the diet is provide a sense of "fullness"
>
> One of the things that fats do in the diet is provide a sense of "fullness"
I read something recently that basically said toddlers that had full fat milk as opposed to semi-skimmed were less likely to be overweight (if I find the abstract again I'll post it). Obviously it is only one factor that is contributing to a problem, but I think the point was partly about that feeling of fullness from full fat milk (which is only about 4% fat so hardly a high-fat food!).
The stats on pre-school children being overweight or obese are pretty scary, plus only 10% get enough physical activity (recommendations are different for this age group - 180 mins per day of light, moderate or vigorous activity).
In reply to ByEek:
Correct. The blame clearly lies with the parents. Teachers should be brought into the equation in order to highlight to parents that their child is overweight. The teachers should escalate to the GP/ Social services that the child is at risk.
I'm not on a particularly high income and have to shop around for fresh produce , but a healthy diet is achievable on a budget for low income. My sister in law and her son practically live on lentil stew. Not ideal for a true balance, and hard to stomach after a few days, but it's very cheap and healthy.
With regards to ' time poor', this is a valid point, but I can make a veggie lasagne with peppers/onions/ tomatoes in 1/2 hr. I fed 5 of us for 2 days for a fiver.
> I am sure that I read somewhere that often, parent with fat children do not see them as fat. If there is no recognition that there is a problem, where do you start?
Correct. The blame clearly lies with the parents. Teachers should be brought into the equation in order to highlight to parents that their child is overweight. The teachers should escalate to the GP/ Social services that the child is at risk.
I'm not on a particularly high income and have to shop around for fresh produce , but a healthy diet is achievable on a budget for low income. My sister in law and her son practically live on lentil stew. Not ideal for a true balance, and hard to stomach after a few days, but it's very cheap and healthy.
With regards to ' time poor', this is a valid point, but I can make a veggie lasagne with peppers/onions/ tomatoes in 1/2 hr. I fed 5 of us for 2 days for a fiver.
In reply to tmawer:
I see, so capitalists have taken away all parental control and responsibility have they? WOW!
> Perhaps a capitalist system which allows marketing of unhealthy products to children has to take some blame.
I see, so capitalists have taken away all parental control and responsibility have they? WOW!
In reply to Skol:
A good way for "time poor" people to save that time rather than buying frozen crap is to cook in bulk and freeze your own "ready meals". I do that a lot as I live on my own, but no reason a family couldn't scale up further. Perhaps involve the kids in a big cook and freeze session, they will probably enjoy it.
As for the child being at risk, I think that would depend exactly *how* overweight we are talking. Perhaps if it got to morbidly obese. Otherwise I am uncomfortable with how "nanny state" we are getting.
I think encouraging more activity is a far better solution, anyway. As I've said before, cycling to school should be the rule, not the exception. We should be looking at the Netherlands for an example of how to plan our towns around it.
Neil
A good way for "time poor" people to save that time rather than buying frozen crap is to cook in bulk and freeze your own "ready meals". I do that a lot as I live on my own, but no reason a family couldn't scale up further. Perhaps involve the kids in a big cook and freeze session, they will probably enjoy it.
As for the child being at risk, I think that would depend exactly *how* overweight we are talking. Perhaps if it got to morbidly obese. Otherwise I am uncomfortable with how "nanny state" we are getting.
I think encouraging more activity is a far better solution, anyway. As I've said before, cycling to school should be the rule, not the exception. We should be looking at the Netherlands for an example of how to plan our towns around it.
Neil
I think that blame can be apportioned around.
Ultimately parents have to take responsibility but they can only make informed decisions if they get sound advice - which they don't.
Successive governments have allowed the food & drink industry, the pharmaceutical industry and big agricultural lobbies to exploit weakness in advertising and legislation.
These industries are deeply embedded in government and also in educational institutions such that:
- we cannot trust much academic output (particular as relates to food, drink and medicine),
- we cannot trust government advice on health.
Furthermore, a piss-poor, sensationalist media means that science reporting is doomed to spurious, reductionist extrapolations that are frankly, worthless.
Is it any wonder that parents get it wrong?
Ultimately parents have to take responsibility but they can only make informed decisions if they get sound advice - which they don't.
Successive governments have allowed the food & drink industry, the pharmaceutical industry and big agricultural lobbies to exploit weakness in advertising and legislation.
These industries are deeply embedded in government and also in educational institutions such that:
- we cannot trust much academic output (particular as relates to food, drink and medicine),
- we cannot trust government advice on health.
Furthermore, a piss-poor, sensationalist media means that science reporting is doomed to spurious, reductionist extrapolations that are frankly, worthless.
Is it any wonder that parents get it wrong?
In reply to myth:
Brilliant, that's that problem solved then. Send round the memo to let everyone know, and we'll have healthy and energetic kids again in no time.
> It is the parents fault and later in life it is the kids fault too.
> Food companies shouldn't be blamed just because Mother cannot stand up to little Timmy's incessant requests for sugary food and pizza.
> Take some god damn responsibility for yourself and your offspring.
Brilliant, that's that problem solved then. Send round the memo to let everyone know, and we'll have healthy and energetic kids again in no time.
In reply to Neil Williams:
It's a good idea. I try to get the kids preparing as much fresh stuff as possible. The five year old peels and cuts her own carrots.
Nanny state though? I think that adults should be able to eat what thy want, but not feed it to their children.
I personally wouldn't let my kids cycle to school using cycle lanes, but with ' green ways' yes( in Stoke, the old railway tracks were paved and you could get across the city on them).
How much do kids do activity wise at school now? I think ours have 1hr / week. Luckily they walk/scooter to school and are in lots of structured physical activity. This is expensive though.
> A good way for "time poor" people to save that time rather than buying frozen crap is to cook in bulk and freeze your own "ready meals". I do that a lot as I live on my own, but no reason a family couldn't scale up further. Perhaps involve the kids in a big cook and freeze session, they will probably enjoy it.
It's a good idea. I try to get the kids preparing as much fresh stuff as possible. The five year old peels and cuts her own carrots.
> As for the child being at risk, I think that would depend exactly *how* overweight we are talking. Perhaps if it got to morbidly obese. Otherwise I am uncomfortable with how "nanny state" we are getting.
I agree. I was talking more of the ones that can barely walk, not your average chubby kid.Nanny state though? I think that adults should be able to eat what thy want, but not feed it to their children.
> I think encouraging more activity is a far better solution, anyway. As I've said before, cycling to school should be the rule, not the exception. We should be looking at the Netherlands for an example of how to plan our towns around it.
I personally wouldn't let my kids cycle to school using cycle lanes, but with ' green ways' yes( in Stoke, the old railway tracks were paved and you could get across the city on them).
How much do kids do activity wise at school now? I think ours have 1hr / week. Luckily they walk/scooter to school and are in lots of structured physical activity. This is expensive though.
> Neil
In reply to Alyson:
Hardly, love.
I was pouring scorn on the parents that go to a sweet shop and expect healthy options. It's a sweet shop . It sells sweets. I'm not anti junk food, but it should be given to children in moderation. Call it a 'treat' .
> Last night you were pouring scorn on mums who feed their children vegetables and, er, water... I think, though your writing 'style' is hard to decipher... instead of just sweets and tonight you post this. You remind me of a tabloid newspaper scrambling for headlines.
Hardly, love.
I was pouring scorn on the parents that go to a sweet shop and expect healthy options. It's a sweet shop . It sells sweets. I'm not anti junk food, but it should be given to children in moderation. Call it a 'treat' .
In reply to Skol:
"Nanny state though? I think that adults should be able to eat what thy want, but not feed it to their children."
I think parents are responsible for their childrens' upbringing, and a standard upbringing should not be dictated by the State. However it depends how far you go. A bit of "puppy fat" is hardly a serious risk, though morbid obesity is.
Interesting question on the side: do kids get bullied at school for being fat any more? I've certainly never heard such a thing from any of the Scouts - is that a sign of it becoming the norm? I got bullied for being fat, and I wasn't *that* fat nor overly unfit, just not the then-norm of really skinny.
"I personally wouldn't let my kids cycle to school using cycle lanes, but with ' green ways' yes( in Stoke, the old railway tracks were paved and you could get across the city on them)."
A bit like the MK Redways then. But pretty much all Dutch kids *do* cycle to school on a combination of dedicated paths, cycle lanes and roads. So how do we change our cities to make that viable here?
Milton Keynes is fortunate in having its Redways, but without things like abandoned railways (as you mentioned) it's hard to crowbar that sort of thing into non-new-build cities. Though some places do have them - for instance there are Dutch-style wide cycle lanes on main roads in a number of parts of West Lancashire - and that's proper Dutch style ones with a separate pavement for pedestrians, FWIW.
"How much do kids do activity wise at school now? I think ours have 1hr / week. Luckily they walk/scooter to school and are in lots of structured physical activity. This is expensive though."
Walking to school is also good, only problem is if school is further away. Structured physical activity is no bad thing, but one of the problems seems to be that many parents these days seem to think that's the only type of play they can allow. Years ago, kids just played outside - unstructured. That is missing, and it is in most places down to paranoia, not increased actual threat, give or take those living by busy roads or in London.
Neil
"Nanny state though? I think that adults should be able to eat what thy want, but not feed it to their children."
I think parents are responsible for their childrens' upbringing, and a standard upbringing should not be dictated by the State. However it depends how far you go. A bit of "puppy fat" is hardly a serious risk, though morbid obesity is.
Interesting question on the side: do kids get bullied at school for being fat any more? I've certainly never heard such a thing from any of the Scouts - is that a sign of it becoming the norm? I got bullied for being fat, and I wasn't *that* fat nor overly unfit, just not the then-norm of really skinny.
"I personally wouldn't let my kids cycle to school using cycle lanes, but with ' green ways' yes( in Stoke, the old railway tracks were paved and you could get across the city on them)."
A bit like the MK Redways then. But pretty much all Dutch kids *do* cycle to school on a combination of dedicated paths, cycle lanes and roads. So how do we change our cities to make that viable here?
Milton Keynes is fortunate in having its Redways, but without things like abandoned railways (as you mentioned) it's hard to crowbar that sort of thing into non-new-build cities. Though some places do have them - for instance there are Dutch-style wide cycle lanes on main roads in a number of parts of West Lancashire - and that's proper Dutch style ones with a separate pavement for pedestrians, FWIW.
"How much do kids do activity wise at school now? I think ours have 1hr / week. Luckily they walk/scooter to school and are in lots of structured physical activity. This is expensive though."
Walking to school is also good, only problem is if school is further away. Structured physical activity is no bad thing, but one of the problems seems to be that many parents these days seem to think that's the only type of play they can allow. Years ago, kids just played outside - unstructured. That is missing, and it is in most places down to paranoia, not increased actual threat, give or take those living by busy roads or in London.
Neil
In reply to Skol:
Agreed. No problem with sweets, fish and chips, McRubbish etc, provided it's not given so frequently that it affects health.
Neil
Agreed. No problem with sweets, fish and chips, McRubbish etc, provided it's not given so frequently that it affects health.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
There is a problem with getting kids to school nowadays. I think there's more time pressure on parents. If we take the naturally lazy parents out of the equation( ie those that drive them 1/2 mile for the sake of it), then we are left with the parents that have to be at work shortly after school starts. Back in the day when one parent had a decent wage, then the child caring parent could walk the kids to school. In this era of minimum wage , when both parents need to be at work, then this can be difficult to do.
For this reason, I don't think that improving infrastructure to allow cycling to school would work effectively?
It is difficult to find balance these days, to obtain the best for your kids, and I think that parents have a stressful time in trying to do so. No wonder some parents are paranoid about what their children are allowed to do( eg eating sweets in a sweet shop).
Ps. I do apologise , Alyson . Sometimes I can be a prick
There is a problem with getting kids to school nowadays. I think there's more time pressure on parents. If we take the naturally lazy parents out of the equation( ie those that drive them 1/2 mile for the sake of it), then we are left with the parents that have to be at work shortly after school starts. Back in the day when one parent had a decent wage, then the child caring parent could walk the kids to school. In this era of minimum wage , when both parents need to be at work, then this can be difficult to do.
For this reason, I don't think that improving infrastructure to allow cycling to school would work effectively?
It is difficult to find balance these days, to obtain the best for your kids, and I think that parents have a stressful time in trying to do so. No wonder some parents are paranoid about what their children are allowed to do( eg eating sweets in a sweet shop).
Ps. I do apologise , Alyson . Sometimes I can be a prick
In reply to Skol:
It does puzzle me, how did it happen. As a teenager in the sixties we had in our village a fat girl, just the one, she was big and would now be classed at the bottom of an obesity scale but we considered her a freak now she would be almost the norm, how, why could there be so many now, gross stupidity from parents, teachers and the medical profession.
It does puzzle me, how did it happen. As a teenager in the sixties we had in our village a fat girl, just the one, she was big and would now be classed at the bottom of an obesity scale but we considered her a freak now she would be almost the norm, how, why could there be so many now, gross stupidity from parents, teachers and the medical profession.
In reply to Skol:
For primary schools this could indeed be an issue. But there is no reason why every kid in "senior" school (11+) shouldn't be getting there under their own steam, and possibly older primary kids as well.
I agree about it being impossible to have a couple and kids living on one income in much of the country (though my sister and her other half manage it with 2 kids in Ulverston, just by not having a very expensive lifestyle, but he earns more than minimum wage). And having been brought up in a family where only one parent worked until I was 11 and went to big school, I think it's a shame, and kids these days gain financial things like iPads but really lose on being brought up near enough exclusively by their own parents.
Neil
For primary schools this could indeed be an issue. But there is no reason why every kid in "senior" school (11+) shouldn't be getting there under their own steam, and possibly older primary kids as well.
I agree about it being impossible to have a couple and kids living on one income in much of the country (though my sister and her other half manage it with 2 kids in Ulverston, just by not having a very expensive lifestyle, but he earns more than minimum wage). And having been brought up in a family where only one parent worked until I was 11 and went to big school, I think it's a shame, and kids these days gain financial things like iPads but really lose on being brought up near enough exclusively by their own parents.
Neil
Post edited at 21:57
In reply to Removed User:
I'm not sure what it's got to do with teachers or the medical profession. It's parents, and to a lesser extent the food companies, though there have been sweets at the tills etc for years, it's just necessary to say no most of the time. And yes to letting kids play out.
Neil
I'm not sure what it's got to do with teachers or the medical profession. It's parents, and to a lesser extent the food companies, though there have been sweets at the tills etc for years, it's just necessary to say no most of the time. And yes to letting kids play out.
Neil
Post edited at 22:00
In reply to Skol:
Well done you. Give yourself a sticker. And for the millions of people who can't or aren't that bothered? Do GPs and teachers really have spare time to mentor 50% of the children in this country. I can't help feeling that the "stick" approach based on "I can do it therefore so can you" is the wrong way to go about solving this problem.
I would take a more holistic approach. Ditch Food Technology or Home Economics or whatever you want to call it and teach cooking in school. I would like to see supermarkets stepping up to the plate and selling veg on offer. Everything in our local Morrisons and Asda is £1 and generally not good value. I would also like to see government taking this problem seriously with a services joining together to tackle the problem head on. We have done wonders to reduce smoking in this country. I don't doubt for a second that we could do the same for obesity.
> but I can make a veggie lasagne with peppers/onions/ tomatoes in 1/2 hr.
Well done you. Give yourself a sticker. And for the millions of people who can't or aren't that bothered? Do GPs and teachers really have spare time to mentor 50% of the children in this country. I can't help feeling that the "stick" approach based on "I can do it therefore so can you" is the wrong way to go about solving this problem.
I would take a more holistic approach. Ditch Food Technology or Home Economics or whatever you want to call it and teach cooking in school. I would like to see supermarkets stepping up to the plate and selling veg on offer. Everything in our local Morrisons and Asda is £1 and generally not good value. I would also like to see government taking this problem seriously with a services joining together to tackle the problem head on. We have done wonders to reduce smoking in this country. I don't doubt for a second that we could do the same for obesity.
In reply to Skol:
I once saw a program (well 10 mins of it before I got bored) about fat kids and they interviewed this mother of some 10 year old who weighed more than me...
She said: 'I don't know what to do. I keep hiding the crisps but he always finds them!'
Jesus f*cking chirst... STOP BUYING THE CRISPS THEN YOU STUPID WOMAN! Quite incredible.
I once saw a program (well 10 mins of it before I got bored) about fat kids and they interviewed this mother of some 10 year old who weighed more than me...
She said: 'I don't know what to do. I keep hiding the crisps but he always finds them!'
Jesus f*cking chirst... STOP BUYING THE CRISPS THEN YOU STUPID WOMAN! Quite incredible.
In reply to ByEek:
Personally, having thought about it, I don't think I would object to a tax on unhealthy prepared food to be used to subsidise the cost of fresh food. But would it actually make much difference?
By the way...loose fresh food is normally better value unless you want Value large packs. And you can just buy what you need.
Neil
Personally, having thought about it, I don't think I would object to a tax on unhealthy prepared food to be used to subsidise the cost of fresh food. But would it actually make much difference?
By the way...loose fresh food is normally better value unless you want Value large packs. And you can just buy what you need.
Neil
Post edited at 09:40
In reply to Neil Williams:
Agreed. But it my local Tesco, the only (cheap) loose veg were carrots, mushrooms and leeks.
> By the way...loose fresh food is normally better value unless you want Value large packs. And you can just buy what you need.
Agreed. But it my local Tesco, the only (cheap) loose veg were carrots, mushrooms and leeks.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...